Well, two years on, what
have you to say for yourself, Mr. Obama? In the petty Bolshivek moment of your
election there was a building of expectations. I tried to keep mine in check,
but it was and is clear that not everyone did so. There were those who
countered pessimism with statements like well, at least he can construct a
sentence, and I granted them that.

From some place of
inexperience I also grant you some benefit of doubt with regard to the
possibility or impossibility persuading the people’s representatives to do the right things. It is quite possible that the resistance
is too great. You seemed to have great faith in this unification strategy, but what must thereby exist? You would
wish to have an unusual power of persuasion or that the parties involved have a
willingness to unify, probably both. I suspect you’d say you have to believe
that no one is so entrenched as to be beyond reach. I’m not sure I see ­­the evidence to support this theory.

•••

Americans seem to be a
stubborn lot, dragged to justice kicking and screaming. And this quality is
thought to be a virtue, like the ‘can do spirit’. This is a typical
over-reaction, born of fear, a condition afflicting the earth’s entire
population. FDR tried to say something about fear, I assume he was trying to
reassure Americans in a troubled time. Has there ever been a un-troubled time?
Historians use an expression: a time of relative calm.

So now you say yes we
can but it might take a while, a
caveat that no doubt the advisors would suggest you drop on the campaign trail.
I suppose you think of timescale relative to other accomplishments. As we live
on, things might seem to take less time (or do they really): dismantling
slavery took some time and effort, as did burying Jim Crow or removing the
barricades to education for the darker brothers and sisters, for example. But
even ‘liberals’ with their ‘theory’ of evolution might suggest that things take
time, a lot of time. How much time do we have? Is there ‘urgency’?

The issue here is that
your adversary seems to think that their aims are best served by dismantling
government, and that those worthy will succeed and come to dominate, indeed
survive, and populate the future. And further, anyone who falls behind is
simply unworthy, unqualified or at least unlucky, and this is not seen as immoral
or tragic (despite the advocates’ title as tragic visionaries), it’s the part
of a Darwinian future to which they can subscribe.

And the use of god is so
convenient, for when we essentially play god by neglect or by the sword, we
needn’t take responsibility for these actions, for we have been chosen by god
to participate. We are doing well our jobs, and with our can do spirit. But I suppose the godless can engage similar
behavior by either complete oblivion or the shrug of fate; gazing not at
injustice or simply accepting the circumstances as inevitable.

Take the example of
national healthcare, or healthcare for all. Some tragic visionaries wouldn’t
shirk from simply suggesting that those who cannot arrange their health are
genetically unsound, just unfit. The system by which the wealthy buy their
health works out fine for them, they can give thanks around the table of
bounty, for they are worthy and wealthy and god has granted their just reward.
God may have not mentioned that those who have not are inferior or faulty, but
we can assume as much. I am not a theologian, but I’m not sure how this squares
with other Christian stuff about compassion or whathaveyou, but no matter. So
then the persuasion Mr. Obama is charged with has to do with moral obligation.
This is what I think a Brit suggests to Michael Moore exists in societies that
have constructed national healthcare: it is a moral obligation for government
to provide at least basic and decent healthcare for all peoples within a
border. This seems like an easy sell, but it appears easily torn down by not
if I have to pay for it and to a
lesser extent, I deserve the very best and somehow although I am wealthy,
the very best will not be available to me if a nation is to provide healthcare to everyone or even basic
healthcare to everyone.

Occasionally, I want to
think about government service as a matter of priorities, but I’m not enough of
a mathematician to discover whether progressive priorities would outspend or
rescue us from the military-industrial complex. There are figures related to
the daily spending on ‘war’, that sure make it seem like money might be better
spent, even if ‘wasted’ on feeding or housing people. The question as to
whether the fear of relinquishing economic dominance to other global interests
is founded or not, is one that may be beyond me. But if history tells
something, such cyclical rises and falls suggest that Americans of some
generation closer or farther will find out first hand. And regardless of
whether we were to bring it upon ourselves by ‘moral’ behavior, by playing the
dove among nations, the belligerence at the heart of American pride makes this
possibility remote of course. Other virtues are stated as to die trying,
never retreat, etc, etc.

And so we come to a
discussion essentially of lethargy. It is easier to do nothing than to do
something. Sometimes it seems like this might catch up to us, to bite us from
behind; that short term thinking will reveal itself to have been short-sided.
It is a matter of risk management some say, one wouldn’t have wanted to
squander resources unnecessarily and discover this in hindsight. But what
really are the significant risks of doing the right thing unnecessarily?

There is the problem of
the subjectivity of correct action. Do I risk suggesting that in their calmer
moments, most people know deeply what is right and it needn’t be pointed out to
them? I may not evidence to support this theory either. If it had been asked of
a Jim Crow advocate, who may have or may not have identified himself as such,
do you know it unjust that a darker person’s human rights be suppressed? There
are so many loopholes in de-humanization; human rights needn’t be extended to
people who are sub-humanized.

It is easier to dismantle
government than to make it functional, to monitor its corruption, to minimize
its blunders. It is amazing that corporations are not held to the same
standards, then, this is another screaming point hurled at Mr. Obama and his
perpetuation of Bush’s bailouts - stated so well by someone, I paraphrase: Some
find it somehow acceptable this situation - “Privatize the profit – Public-ize
the risk.”

This double standard
illustrates to me the fact that, for the most part, Americans do not know
suffering. Americans do know how to scream. Should we believe that if wealth
doesn’t cover needs that Americans would sit upon the wreckage of their lives,
should they be subject to disaster of one type or another, and be heard saying:
“Oh well, I guess I didn’t work or pray hard enough, and this tragedy that has
befallen me and my brethren just proves that I am unworthy.” Americans feel
entitled, chosen by their gods like all the rest of them. Too bad their
apocalyptic fantasies will be too subtle for them to recognize as such; I’d
like to see them crawling to a government that they have dismantled.